Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Man Sues Neighbor For Not Turning Off His Wi-Fi 428

Posted by samzenpus
from the have-you-never-wondered-why-I-drink-only-distilled-water-or-rain-water-and-only-pure-grain-alcohol dept.
Scyth3 writes "A man is suing his neighbor for not turning off his cell phone or wireless router. He claims it affects his 'electromagnetic allergies,' and has resorted to being homeless. So, why doesn't he check into a hotel? Because hotels typically have wireless internet for free. I wonder if a tinfoil hat would help his cause?"

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Man Sues Neighbor For Not Turning Off His Wi-Fi

Comments Filter:
  • Retard. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by XPeter (1429763) * on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @06:30PM (#30743740) Homepage

    You can't be "Allergic to wi-fi"

    Put him in a room, and turn the wireless on and off. Guaranteed he won't be able to tell the difference.

    • Re:Retard. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Rei (128717) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @06:51PM (#30744020) Homepage

      That can't stop you from suing. Look at Jonathan Lee Riches [wikipedia.org]. This is a guy who sued the Guinness Book of World Records for listing him as the man who's filed the most lawsuits in the history of mankind. ;) He's among others, he's sued Bill Belichick, George W. Bush, Martha Stewart, Jeff Gordon, Michael Vick, Steve Jobs, Perez Hilton, Somali pirates, Britney Spears, Benazir Bhutto, Pervez Musharraf, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Adolf Hitler's National Socialist Party, the 13 tribes of Israel, Plato, Nostradamus, Che Guevara, James Hoffa, "Various Buddhist Monks", the Lincoln Memorial, the Eiffel Tower, the USS Cole, the book Mein Kampf, the Garden of Eden, the Roman Empire, the Appalachian Trail, Plymouth Rock, the Holy Grail, the dwarf planet Pluto, and the entire Three Mile Island.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Leebert (1694) *

      Put him in a room, and turn the wireless on and off. Guaranteed he won't be able to tell the difference.

      That's all well and good, and I'm sure the guy is full of it, BUT...

      Many allergic reactions (like my own seasonal allergies) don't come and go like a light switch in the presence or absence of the allergen.

      I could sit in a clean room for 2 or 3 days after getting really spun up from my tree allergies until the symptoms really begin to diminish.

      • by PPH (736903)

        So, test to see if this guy's symptoms correlate with the beginning of exposure. And if that isn't definitive, there's another problem: Prove that its actually exposure to e.m. fields that trigger his symptoms. If their onset is slow, it may take months or even years to actually isolate the environmental factors to which he is sensitive. Months or years living in a controlled environment.

        Perhaps he's just allegic to living in rooms without rubber walls.

      • Re:Retard. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by 2short (466733) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @07:42PM (#30744650)
        "Many allergic reactions (like my own seasonal allergies) don't come and go like a light switch in the presence or absence of the allergen."

        But all allergic reactions (including your seasonal allergies) occur when the body identifies proteins in the allergen as belonging to an attacking organism, and produces antibodies in response. To put it simply, if ridiculously, there are no proteins in wi-fi signals. So, even if wifi has any unusual effect on this guy, it isn't an allergy.

        "I could sit in a clean room for 2 or 3 days after getting really spun up from my tree allergies until the symptoms really begin to diminish."

        Of course. Antibodies remain in your blood well after exposure. But if you sat in a clean room until you had no symptoms, then inhaled a vial I gave you, and waited in the clean room to see what happened, you could tell me if the vial contained tree pollen or just something that smelled like it but wasn't. Can this guy do something similar with a box that might be a wifi router or not? I don't know, but a lot of other people have claimed sensitivity to wifi, and none of them have done it, so I'm guessing he can't either.
        • Re:Retard. (Score:5, Informative)

          by pclminion (145572) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @08:45PM (#30745312)

          My mother in law has a medical condition where exposure to bright sunlight breaks down proteins in her skin. One of the breakdown products generates an auto-immune response. In other words, she's "allergic" to bright sunlight. True, sunlight contains no proteins, but the interaction of sunlight with her skin CREATES proteins to which she is allergic.

          I seriously doubt that WiFi radiation could do the same thing, but these processes can't be oversimplified like that.

      • Re:Retard. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Chris Burke (6130) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @07:55PM (#30744786) Homepage

        Many allergic reactions (like my own seasonal allergies) don't come and go like a light switch in the presence or absence of the allergen.

        Right, because your immune system is actually being agitated by the actual allergic response to the actual allergens, and it takes time to come down, plus there are probably still actual allergens like pollen stuck in your sinuses and continuing to irritate you.

        Speaking of light switches, all I can think of is the case of a cell phone company that put up a new tower, and all the advanced [angryflower.com] folks in the neighborhood by it complained that the tower was irritating their EM allergies and giving them headaches and whatnot.

        The company's response to their complaints? "Gee, we can only imagine how bad it's going to get when we actually turn the tower on!"

        The tower wasn't on. There was no EM radiation that could have provoked any hypothetical allergy response. It was all in their extremely advanced heads.

        The ultimate kicker to this story would be if the neighbor had actually turned off their wi-fi weeks ago but told the guy they hadn't just to keep cheesing them off and to show how the "allergy" only exists as long as they think there's evil wi-fi. Unfortunately I'm sure that's not true, because the neighbor probably finds their wi-fi useful and why the hell would you stop using a useful and harmless tool because the nutjob next door thinks it's bad for them?

        As far as the "weird unexplained things happen!" reasoning... Yeah, weird things do happen, but it's not like wi-fi itself is some unexplained phenomenon. We know what the power densities of it are at any given range, and unless you believe in homeopathic E-M radiation, there's no way it's having the effects people claim. High voltage power lines? Maybe there's something to that. Wi-fi? Yeah fucking right.

    • Re:Retard. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AmigaMMC (1103025) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @07:23PM (#30744416)
      What next? Is he going to ask radio stations to stop broadcasting? Or is he allergic only to frequencies used by Wi-Fi routers?

      We live in a world that is constantly bombarded by radio waves, can't really hide anywhere.

    • Re:Retard. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by flatrock (79357) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @08:34PM (#30745216)

      The existence of his allergies or lack thereof is irrelevant. The case should be dismissed because it is not his neighbor's resonsibility to go beyond FCC regulations in limiting radio emissions from his property. Turning off his cell phone will also do nothing about the cell towers in the area.

      The guy with the allergies can take steps to block or at least seriously attenuate signals comming into his house. It may not be cheap, but since when is dealing with medical problems cheap.

      He can also move to a rural area where such emissions are less in order to avoid them.

    • Re:Retard. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BikeHelmet (1437881) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @08:50PM (#30745374) Journal

      You can't be "Allergic to wi-fi"

      Put him in a room, and turn the wireless on and off. Guaranteed he won't be able to tell the difference.

      Maybe that's not what it is.

      My neighbour's phone was giving me a nasty headache. I thought it was food allergies, but one time I was in the backyard and his window was opened. I noticed the throbbing was pointing directly at that opening. I went over to his house and explained what was going on. He thought it was really strange, but let me in to look around. Once I figured out it was the phone(took all of 10 seconds to find it), I told him. He was happy to accept the new phone that I gave him later that day. No more headaches.

      Best bet... some sort of frequency that I can *almost* hear, but nobody else can? The new phone was the exact same frequency, so I suspect his was somehow defective.

      The guy suing could be a hypochondriac, or maybe there's more to it. I can hear CRT TVs - but that's pretty common. I can also hear circuit breakers, capacitors, power lines (I try not to get too close), LCD monitors, battery powered clocks, some watches, etc.; but none of that stuff causes me to have a headache. I have a Wireless G network with the signal strength ramped up - Tomato WRT54GL - but no headache.

      I think my (superior?) hearing might be genetic. I have an Uncle nearing age 60, and he can still hear that annoying Mosquito ringtone that's supposed to be Teen-only.

      What I don't get is, why would this guy sue? My first line of attack would be begging them to let me network their whole house, if it was real physical discomfort. If it wasn't physical - just something audible like being able to hear their TV - then who cares?

  • Does he sue neighbors for nuking food too? What about talking on cordless phones? Using bluetooth headsets or wireless console controllers?
  • Seems oddly like... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Darkness404 (1287218) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @06:32PM (#30743756)
  • Don't live there (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DeadPixels (1391907) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @06:32PM (#30743766)
    Even if we were to assume that these "electromagnetic allergies" did exist, no one is forcing that man to live there. As an example, I'm allergic to dogs, but I'm not suing my neighbor for owning one. It's my choice to live where I do and it's not my prerogative to tell him that he can't own a dog.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Your neighbor's dog doesn't radiate through the walls though. :P

    • Even if we were to assume that these "electromagnetic allergies" did exist, no one is forcing that man to live there. As an example, I'm allergic to dogs, but I'm not suing my neighbor for owning one. It's my choice to live where I do and it's not my prerogative to tell him that he can't own a dog.

      That's not how it works - homeowners legally entitled to some degree of peace and quiet. There are local ordinances for that sort of thing, as dogs are a potential disturbance. Your neighbor probably can't legally

    • by snowgirl (978879) *

      Even if we were to assume that these "electromagnetic allergies" did exist, no one is forcing that man to live there. As an example, I'm allergic to dogs, but I'm not suing my neighbor for owning one. It's my choice to live where I do and it's not my prerogative to tell him that he can't own a dog.

      The law provides that it is unreasonable for someone to create a nuisance to another person that impinges upon their ability to enjoy their property.

      You could sue your neighbor complaining about the allergies, but you likely wouldn't because it's not worth the legal effort. However, let's take a different example, your neighbor is now a manufacturing plant that came in after you bought your property, and has begun polluting the air. Guess what? They're not allowed to unreasonably pollute, and if it cause

    • by DMiax (915735)

      But his dog does not enter your house, right? and you expect your neighbour to ansure that he does not. So *if* (and it is a big if) wifi can be considered dangerous to this guy he can ask his neighbour to prevent EM waves from entering his house. Like, by covering the walls in metal.

      More likely, if the currently harmless spectrum could be proven not harmless then a new one will be tested and allocated and old routers will be outlawed.

  • litmus test (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MaXintosh (159753) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @06:32PM (#30743768)
    I have a way to be fair to this guy, as well as punish people abusing torts. It's very simple:
    a) If he can demonstrate his ability to detect electromagnetic fields under reasonable experimental conditions, they'll consider his case.
    b) If he can't demonstrate his ability to detect electromagnetic fields under reasonable experimental conditions significantly more than chance, he owes the plaintiff the same amount he's seeking.

    I call this the `put up or shut up` principle. Although, it might be more widely known as the `Let's not be flaming idiots` principle.
    • by MaXintosh (159753)
      Oops. Not Plaintiff. Defendant. Brain fart, on my part.
    • Re:litmus test (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LWATCDR (28044) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @06:42PM (#30743914) Homepage Journal

      Or let's actually be very fair.
      Using WiFi is totally legal and within the other home owners rights. Even if he has this alergy it isn't up to his neighbor to do anything about it.
      May his health insurance provider will offer to build him a Faraday cage. All he would need to do is cover his house with chicken wire, paint and stucco over it and connect it to ground.
      That would protect him from not only WiFi but also radar from planes flying over head, TV and Radio broadcasts, and even Satellite transmissions.
      Of course he would have to give up electricity all together to really have an EM free home but that is his problem.

      • by MaXintosh (159753)
        That thought had occurred to me. If he's really having that hard of a time sleeping, he could easily build a faraday cage around his bed, at the very least. It's not like they're incredibly complex. And he'd get some respite, and the ability to catch some Zs.

        Unless, that is, he's not sensitive to squat.
        • by DMiax (915735)

          faraday cages do not block elecromagnetic waves. lhc will not create a black hole. antimatter cannot be transported in a suitcase. homeopathy has no scientific evidence. earth is not flat.

          we are on slashdot for god's sake!

          • Re:litmus test (Score:5, Insightful)

            by IndustrialComplex (975015) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @07:06PM (#30744214)

            we are on slashdot for god's sake!

            You know what? You are right. Lets give that the Slashdot treatment.

            faraday cages do not block elecromagnetic waves.
            Depends on the meaning of the word block.

            antimatter cannot be transported in a suitcase. Of course it can, just not transported very far. And it has the side benefit of transporting everything around it immediately afterward.

            homeopathy has no scientific evidence. Of course it has scientific evidence. The evidence suggests that Homeopathy is bunk, but there is plenty of evidence.

            earth is not flat.
            You just need to look at it on the right scale.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by snowgirl (978879) *

      I have a way to be fair to this guy, as well as punish people abusing torts. It's very simple:
      a) If he can demonstrate his ability to detect electromagnetic fields under reasonable experimental conditions, they'll consider his case.
      b) If he can't demonstrate his ability to detect electromagnetic fields under reasonable experimental conditions significantly more than chance, he owes the plaintiff the same amount he's seeking.

      I call this the `put up or shut up` principle. Although, it might be more widely known as the `Let's not be flaming idiots` principle.

      There's a few issues here. First, the man may just be suing for equity, as in suing to obtain an order of restraint requiring his neighbor to disable his EM emissions. As well, there are situations where a court considering some complex issue where an order of restraint may result in unfair damages against the other party to have the initiating party place a bond against such damages.

      This guy faces an uphill battle, since he has to prove to a better than 50% confidence that his neighbor's EM emissions are

    • b) If he can't demonstrate his ability to detect electromagnetic fields under reasonable experimental conditions significantly more than chance, he owes the plaintiff the same amount he's seeking.

      Why the amount he's seeking?

      Wouldn't it be more fair to compensate the defendant for court fees (if any), lawyer salary, lost income/time and compensate the defendant for undue emotional distress? That is, make repairs exactly for the damage or losses you have caused, no more and no less?

      Or should there be a disincentive towards filing suits? We all hate litigious bastards, especially the well-funded kind, but disincentives towards filing suits also impacts the little man.

      I'm not saying I know the answer.

      • by MaXintosh (159753) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @06:50PM (#30744010)
        The plaintiff is a serial litigant. He's sued just about everyone and his uncle before [overlawyered.com]. While I agree, there needs to be protection for those with less extreme claims, there also needs to be more teeth to punishing those who abuse the system. A nice place to start is to punish those with outlandish or vindictive claims.
      • by snowgirl (978879) *

        b) If he can't demonstrate his ability to detect electromagnetic fields under reasonable experimental conditions significantly more than chance, he owes the plaintiff the same amount he's seeking.

        Why the amount he's seeking?

        Wouldn't it be more fair to compensate the defendant for court fees (if any), lawyer salary, lost income/time and compensate the defendant for undue emotional distress? That is, make repairs exactly for the damage or losses you have caused, no more and no less?

        Or should there be a disincentive towards filing suits? We all hate litigious bastards, especially the well-funded kind, but disincentives towards filing suits also impacts the little man.

        I'm not saying I know the answer. I'm just suggesting that we should consider all the options (or at least a handful).

        "An idea is a dangerous thing to have if it's your only idea." (I can't remember who said it, but I think David Allen quoted that person in Getting Things Done.)

        If a judge dismisses your case because it's frivolous, he will typically do two things, dismiss the case with prejudice (meaning the plaintiff/petitioner cannot ever bring the same facts into court again) and require the plaintiff/petitioner to pay reasonable legal fees incurred by the defendant.

        The problem is that a lot of cases that people think are frivolous are based upon a lot of facts, where they do create a question of law.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by 91degrees (207121)
      He's not really abusing torts though. At least not deliberately. He does suffer from a genuine medical condition. The fact that it's psychological rather than physical doesn't make it any less of a problem.
    • Can you demonstrate your ability to detect asbestos?

      If not, it must not be harming you.

  • by kclittle (625128) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @06:33PM (#30743772)
    And stop eating meat OR veggies -- I can hear the carrots scream!
    • by Psyborgue (699890)

      And the angel of the lord came unto me, snatching me up from my place of slumber. And took me on high, and higher still until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself. And he brought me into a vast farmlands of our own midwest. And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil. One thousand, nay a million voices full of fear. And terror possessed me then. And I begged, "Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?" And the angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots! You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust." And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat like the tears of one million terrified brothers and roared, "Hear me now, I have seen the light! They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers!" Can I get an amen? Can I get a hallelujah? Thank you Jesus.

      From Disgustipated by Tool.

  • You can be sure that if any harmful link had been scientifically established to this point, even just on the
    balance of probabilities, a class action lawyer would already be in there pursuing a billion dollar
    case for the class of "neighbours of wi-fi basestations.

    I'm still open minded about all this. I don't really think cell phone radiation is bad for me, but
    I would move or protest if someone put up the cell transmitter on my roof.

    And I ain't superstitious, but a black cat just crossed my path.

    To the defend

    • by MaXintosh (159753)

      To the defendant: Make sure a judge hears the case, not a jury.

      It's a sad indictment of the US's critical thinking skills that this is true. Juries are too willing to take personal testimony uncritically. "Well, Jane said she got better after rubbing her head with a ferret, so it must be true." Or something like that.

      • Unfortunately, the right to demand a jury trial is with BOTH the plaintiff and the defendant. All the defendant can hope for is to succeed with a summary judgement motion to dismiss, but if the judge finds that there's a chance that there is something like electromagnetic allergy, that's a disputed fact to be decided by a jury if requested.
      • by tsm_sf (545316) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @06:58PM (#30744136) Journal

        Ferrets are widely known to promote blood circulation, asshole. One of the landmark studies compared the orgonocephalic health of a man with a ferret strapped to his head against that of a control subject*, with many interesting results.

        * tube sock full of mice

        • by Artifakt (700173)

          I'm reasonably sure the health (the general health, not just the 'orgonocephalic' health) of a tube sock full of mice goes down when they are strapped to a ferret. While the ferret will promote blood flow, this will be one way flow, not circulation. Alternately, the health of a ferret will decrease if it is strapped to Zombie Dr. Reich. That's probably the cephalic effect you were thinking of.

    • I'm still open minded about all this. I don't really think cell phone radiation is bad for me, but I would move or protest if someone put up the cell transmitter on my roof.

      That's OK -- they can put one on my roof anytime they want. It will be nice to have the carrier sending me money every month, for a change.

      • by phayes (202222)
        Cell phone transmitters are directional and the direction where they transmit the least is usually straight up & straight down. Assuming that a cell tower on your roof will assemble a number of antennas to give 360 coverage, the spot with the least intesity is just about always the building just beneath it. This fact amuses me no end every time some nut blames his insomnia/impotence/mental imbalance/other ill defined ailment on the cell tower implanted 6 stories above his bedroom...
    • by rrhal (88665)
      To the defendant - counter sue for this blatant disregard for your allergy to small minded ass-holes.
  • Simple test... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Loki_1929 (550940) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @06:36PM (#30743824) Journal

    I think this guy's full of it, but there's a pretty simple test. Blindfold him and drive him out to a nice, open, quiet country setting. Something with lots of fresh air, birds chirping, no cars, no people, etc. Somewhere where you can smell flowers from a mile away and it feels like you're on a country road in the middle of nowhere. Park under high tension lines. Then ask him how he feels. If he's not on the ground doubled over in pain, he's a POS and full of it.

    And if this guy really does have that severe a reaction to all technology, then Darwin says he should go stuff. Let him join an Amish community and live the rest of his life in peace. He has no right to shut down every invention of the past hundred years everywhere he goes simply because he's a genetic disaster.

    • by Locke2005 (849178)
      That reminds me... at Cape Lisburne, we had a really old navy Beacon for the airstrip which gave off enough EMI to light a florescent tube (no really, there was one on the wall). I swear, you really could feel it when you were in the shack. So I think it is highly possible that some people could detect being under high tension lines (I think lower frequency is easier to detect). High tension lines are also known to be able to light up florescent bulbs at a distance. I think sitting him next to the router an
      • That reminds me... at Cape Lisburne, we had a really old navy Beacon for the airstrip which gave off enough EMI to light a florescent tube (no really, there was one on the wall). I swear, you really could feel it when you were in the shack. So I think it is highly possible that some people could detect being under high tension lines (I think lower frequency is easier to detect). High tension lines are also known to be able to light up florescent bulbs at a distance. I think sitting him next to the router an

  • by mldi (1598123) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @06:36PM (#30743826)
    Is he crazy? I wanna sue my neighbour for not turning his WiFi back on!
  • I am so certain that this poor jerk's investment in a law suit will bring him good results. The settlement will be delivered in a car driven by Elvis with Jimmy Hoffa representing the defendant.

  • So the popular radiowaves he knows/thinks about bothers him but not all the other sources.
    Lets hope he does not park his car close to a cell tower, a tv or radio transmitter etc.

    Better yet, give him a Wi-spy and let him scan 2.4GHz for all the other crap there like car alarms, baby monitors, etc. He well never find a place to sleep.

  • phobia (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wizardforce (1005805) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @06:39PM (#30743868) Journal

    If the neighbor's house was emitting dangerous levels of gamma radiation then the suit would definately have merit but this is a severe phobia not a physiological reaction to wifi "radiation." There is zero evidence what so ever that anyone has any adverse reaction to wifi and even if there was. it would not be an "allergy."

  • by nweaver (113078) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @06:41PM (#30743888) Homepage

    As has been mentioned by others, WiFi sensitivity should easily count for paranormal under the James Randi Educational Foundation's $1M paranormal prize. http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html [randi.org]

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Qzukk (229616)

      WiFi sensitivity should easily count for paranormal

      I suspect that Randi would call it "abnormal" rather than "paranormal", after all, WiFi scientifically exists, and there are various mechanisms for detecting electromagnetic fields throughout nature.

      • by snowgirl (978879) *

        WiFi sensitivity should easily count for paranormal

        I suspect that Randi would call it "abnormal" rather than "paranormal", after all, WiFi scientifically exists, and there are various mechanisms for detecting electromagnetic fields throughout nature.

        I believe that if one were able to prove their paranormal activities in controlled conditions that it would simply be "abnormal" in the first place. If the guy has Wi-Fi sensitivity and can detect it without the use of a device, I believe that would qualify as paranormal... and hell, if such a person does exist, I think they deserve $1M just for being able to prove it in laboratory conditions.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by RapmasterT (787426)
        WiFi does exist, but that's not the paranormal claim, being allergic to it (no less just being able to SENSE it) most definitely IS a paranormal claim. The JREF makes no requirement that the person taking the challenge believe the claim is paranormal, they handle that part for them. In fact the most common claim they receive is plain old water dowsing. Water can be "detected" through many different processes, a forked stick just isn't one of them.
  • Two Words (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Locke2005 (849178) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @06:45PM (#30743950)
    Faraday Cage

    Intel has equipped entire floors at Jones Farm with these (even coatings on the Windows). Yes, it makes cell phones unusable on those floors.
  • by lemur666 (313121) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @06:54PM (#30744076)
    ...how exactly did he know his neighbor had a wireless router running, unless he used some sort of wireless device (all of which produce their own EM emissions) to specifically detect the EM emissions coming from his neighbor? And no, divining rods don't count, regardless of what Iraqi bomb squads are doing. [nytimes.com]
  • by jafo (11982) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @06:58PM (#30744132) Homepage
    Last I knew, the FCC was pretty clear that they were the only ones that had the power to regulate RF emissions. I wonder how easy it would be to get the FCC to tell the plaintiff to retract his case or face FCC fines.

    I mean, hey, my neighbor was just fined tens of thousands of dollars by the FAA for launching a homemade balloon. They're serving jail time now. I don't want to mess with organizations matching the F[A-Z]{2} regex. :-)

    Sean
  • This one was http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/09/07/27/1514209/English-DJ-Claims-Wi-Fi-Allergy [slashdot.org]
    Or maybe this guy's the real nutty deal.
  • I'd turn my electronics off at random times and for random intervals. I'd log every time I did that and for how long I had them powered down. Then, if the case went to court I'd throw the log out there and say, "I had my stuff powered off at these times, did you realize this and go back into your house?" When the paranoid litigant said "Uh, no." I'd ask for a case dismissal since it's pretty obvious the guy can't tell when his allergic reaction is kicking in or not.
  • by master_p (608214) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @07:17PM (#30744356)

    That's what you get when you read /. at 2 am and you are falling asleep on the keyboard...

  • by theNAM666 (179776) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @07:21PM (#30744408)

    In other news, the Prime Minister released a press release today, explaining that recent government scandals were the result of "problems with the WiFi" which caused "mass delusions among Parliamentarians" which "made them do it." Mr. Brown promises that henceforth that the Parliamentary floor, retreats and other events will be WiFi-free in order to combat corruption. No word on Browning Street.

"It is better to have tried and failed than to have failed to try, but the result's the same." - Mike Dennison

Working...